Section 52 - Doctrine of Lis Pendens

Section 52- "Doctrine of Lis Pendens"

Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, embodies the doctrine of lis pendens, which means "pending litigation". The doctrine states that any transfer of immovable property during a pending suit involving the same property is subject to the outcome of the suit, and does not affect the rights of the other party.

The main purpose of the doctrine is to prevent the endless litigation and confusion that would arise from allowing transfers pendente lite (during the litigation). The doctrine is based on public policy and convenience, not on the principle of notice. Therefore, it does not matter whether the transferee pendente lite had or had not notice of the pending suit.

The essential conditions for the applicability of the doctrine are:

- There must be a pending suit or proceeding in a court of competent jurisdiction.

- The suit or proceeding must not be collusive.

- The suit or proceeding must directly and specifically involve a right to immovable property.

- The property must be transferred or otherwise dealt with by any party to the suit or proceeding.

The effect of the doctrine is that the transfer or dealing pendente lite does not annul or invalidate the suit or proceeding, but only renders it subservient to the rights of the parties to the suit or proceeding. The transferee pendente lite is bound by the decree or order that may be made in the suit or proceeding, and has to surrender the property to the rightful party.

The doctrine has some exceptions, such as:

- Transfers by operation of law, such as by inheritance or insolvency.

- Transfers for valuable consideration and in good faith, such as by a bona fide purchaser for value without notice.

- Transfers with the express or implied consent of the parties to the suit or proceeding, such as by compromise or adjustment.

An example of the doctrine of lis pendens is the case of Bellamy vs Sabine. The facts and judgement in the case of Bellamy vs Sabine are as follows:

- E sold immovable property to S.

- E's son F, as heir of E, sued S in a competent court to set aside the sale on the ground that E was not the absolute owner of the property.

- Pendente lite (during the litigation), S sold the property to B, who took without notice of the pending suit.

- The court held that F was entitled to the property, and the sale by E to S was set aside.

- The transferee B was also bound by the decree, and had to surrender the property to F.

The judgement of the case was delivered by Lord Justice Turner, who explained the rationale of the doctrine of lis pendens as follows:

- The doctrine is common to both law and equity courts, and rests on the foundation that it would be impossible to bring any action or suit to a successful termination, if alienations pendente lite were permitted to prevail.

- The doctrine does not affect the rights of the parties to the suit, but only the rights of the transferees pendente lite, who are bound by the litigation in which they did not choose to intervene.

- The doctrine does not annul the conveyances made pendente lite, but only renders them subservient to the rights of the parties to the suit.

- The doctrine is not based on the principle of notice, but on the ground of public policy and convenience, to prevent the endless litigation and confusion that would arise from allowing transfers pendente lite.

Another example is the case of Jayaram Mudaliar vs Ayyaswami , where the Supreme Court of India held that the doctrine of lis pendens applies to a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell immovable property, and any subsequent transfer of the property by the vendor is subject to the outcome of the suit.